Featured Does Baptism have to be by immersion?

Distinctively incorrect!

WM

 

The point is that the scriptuers teach contrary to the "father's" in regard to baptism so in order to find any justification for another mode than immersion, and another candidate but believers one must find it OUTSIDE of the scriptures.

 

believers baptism......

done to one who has already been saved, and is done by immersion...

 

You have not a clue.

 

I added to your quote for clarification.

http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/baptistdenom.htm

http://baptistdistinctives.org/articles/believers-baptism/

http://sbctoday.com/2007/09/26/reclaiming-the-baptist-distinctive-baptism-by-immersion/

http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/print-edition-article-detail.php?id_art=15699&pricat_art=5

 

According to the vain traditions of men! However, that is where your kind must flee to as a refuge as the scriptures are a scathing rebuke to your traditions of men.

 

Think that the biggest concern would be in the use of the term 'Universal church/Church of christ"...

just saying the bible does teach that ALL NT saints are into that Body, maybe we are saying same thing, but with different terminolgy!

 

That's because most Christians do not believe in the recent man made Sola Scriptura position.

WM

 

Right....

WM

 

Nothing recent about it! It is as old as Scripture itself! What is recent is the rejection of scripture as final authority for faith and practice.

FACTS:

1. The scripture claims to be final authority in faith and practice - Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17;

2. Jesus NEVER quoted tradition as a source of authority for faith and practice but consistently quoted scripture as authority.

3. The Apostles NEVER quoted tradition as a source of authority for faith and practice but consistently quoted scripture as there final authority

 

Have you done any serious study in regard to the distinctions between the kingdom of God and the church of God?

For example

1. Different terms with different meanings

2. Different point in time for existence

3. Different relationships with God

4. Different ways of entrance

5. Different relationship to each other

 

From my reading of the bible and from other references...

isn't the Church part of the kingdom, but not ALL of it?

 

Yet... Scripture never says that it is the SOLe authority and you cannot show where it says that about itself. Now I know that you want to make this a debate about Sola Scriptura, however, since a majority of Christians don't hold to that man-made and fallacious doctrine, it will be your task to prove it - and a task, I might add, that you have been repeatedly unable to prove. Yeeeee- haw!

WM

 

No, I have demonstrated it thoroughly and repeatedly. I demonstrated by the examples of Christ and the Apostles. I have demonstrated by both Old and New Testaments passages (Isa. 8:16-20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). I have demonstrated by the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Tertullian). However, I can't open blind eyes and heal deaf ears - God will have to do that for you!

 

Yet you cannot provide a single scriptural passage showing where scripture states that it is the SOLE authority as it simply does not exist. What I find very interesting is your predilection to discount the ECF's when they disagree with you, only to then turn and embrace them when convenient. Here's your own post in this very thread...

And what have you just done by using Tertullian in support of Sola Scriptura but go outside of scripture. Thus you deny your own belief in Sola Scriptura and by doing so, you disprove the very position that you so vehemently espouse. Where did you get your education? SPANK...

WM

 

Duplicate post..

 

Why are you trying to drag this off topic?

 

That is simply not true! Isaiah 8:20 clearly says it. You have to EXPLAIN IT AWAY and any interpetation that has to EXPLAIN AWAY what a text says is a weaker interpretation. The same is true with 2 Tim. 3:16-17. You have to EXPLAIN IT AWAY!

Furthermore, I demonstrate those texts by the actions of both Christ and the Apostles as they NEVER call upon traditions of the elders as authority for their teachings or actions but ALWAYS quote scripture as their authority.

I don't have to quote ECF's at all, just as I don't have to quote Watchtower sources but I do because JW's and Catholics recogize such things as authority. I quote such uninspired sources to show the inconsistency with their arguments and their refusal to accept the scriptures.

I could simply quote Isaiah 8:16-18 and follow it up in the New Testament writers as I have done many times and that is completely sufficient for me because I recognize the scriptuers as my sole authority for faith and practice. However, guys like you don't recognize scripture as either sole or final authority for anything and so I quote what you do recognize when I can find it to show your own confusion!

 

Yet, you didn't rely only on scripture. By quoting Tertullian, you have completely destroyed your own position of Sola Scriptura. Hey... It's you position not mine. You are totally busted!

WM

 

ZZZZzzzzz....